ANGRY MOB

Now isn't this a particularly shocking story. A poor patient in the run-down New Labour death camp posing as the NHS commits suicide and his body wasn't even found for four days. How can this happen? Roll out the broken Britain themed comments:

Not surprisingly Sarah is utterly wrong and clearly hasn't read the article (or isn't capable of reading anything more than the big-letter headline).

Firstly, the man was not a patient at the hospital. He had been, but had discharged himself against the advice of doctors. He then went back into the hospital without the knowledge of staff. So, he hadn't gone missing from a bed and in fact hadn't gone missing at all, as he was not a registered patient he didn't exist as far as hospital staff are concerned.

Before anyone starts complaining about how he got back into the hospital unobserved, remember this is the public sector, it is already a bloated expense around the neck of the hard-done-by middle classes without shelling out extra on hospital staff / security.

Secondly:

So the dead man wasn't swinging from a light fitting in a crowded toliet in reception, he was hidden away in an area not accessible to staff or hospital patients. This is clearly not the same as a rotting corpse being left in a busy toliet, which is what the headline seems to be hinting at.

What is amusing (in as much as how do people still comment in absolute ignorance of the simple facts) is that the Daily Mail clearly quote the above statement from a spokeswoman for West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the spokeswoman also makes it perfectly clear the dead man was not a patient:

The reason why Sarah (and many others) comment in ignorance of the truth is that the Daily Mail relies on its readers skim reading articles. The Daily Mail is aware that as long as the headline and first few paragraphs contain the relevant lie they can print the truth in the middle of the article without many readers paying much attention to it. Thus the majority of comments only reflect the headline and introductory paragraphs, not the actual truth which I suppose for legal reasons the Daily Mail must occasionally insert into its stories.

The headline is attractive to the average Mail reader who thinks that the NHS is actually bad for your health. Because they instinctively agree with the content of the headline - and the headline is entirely believable and reinforces their worldview - they do not need to read the article. All they have to do is scroll to the bottom of the page and start blaming New Labour or other Daily Mail bogeymen:

Still, regardless of how gullible the commentators are on an average Daily Mail article the point still has to be made that the Daily Mail is trying to mislead them. Look at the screen grab below and count how many times the dead man is referred to as a 'patient' in the opening paragraphs / captions:

As is often the case with misleading padding articles such as this, no-one in the Daily Mail office wants credit for it so the credit goes to the infamous 'Daily Mail Reporter'.

It still surprises me that the Daily Mail publishes blantant lies - repeatedly - in its articles yet expects to be treated as anything more than a tabloid newspaper wallowing in the gutter of journalism.